WEeding Awards, vol. 3

[<<Volume 2 | About | Winners | Records | FAQ | Volume 4>>]

Prologue

This week’s volume of the WEeding Awards shows us that people on both sides of the political aisle can express diametrically opposed views while committing the same mistake.

First, it highlights WEeds by two commentators who are for — and by a Democratic presidential candidate who is against — the Iraq war. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

Then it pokes gentle fun at a group of editors for using WEeds to take responsibility for defeating the Nazis and the Soviets, and at a Canadian for speaking in the first-person plural about Americans’ activities.

And finally, it ribs a magazine bureau chief for seeming to think he knows what he doesn’t, and a noted journalist for thinking he doesn’t think what he thinks.

There’s nothing more fun than a new volume of the WEeding Awards, so read away! Start from the beginning, or click on a title below to jump to the text’s award explanation/announcement. Either way, you’re in for a treat!

Contents

8: “The View from the Continent,” by Peter Wehner, Commentary Magazine’s “Contentions” blog

9: “Interview with Senator Barack Obama,” answers by Barack Obama, CNN’s The Situation Room

10: “Rethinking the Iraq Critics,” by Michael Barone, U.S. News and World Report

11: “We’re (Still) No. 1,” by the Editors, Investors Business Daily

12: “Getting Away With Torture,” by Dahlia Lithwick, Newsweek

13: “Should You Pay $6 Per Gallon?,” by Keith Naughton, Newsweek

14: “Genetic Discrimination: Unfair or Natural?,” by Michael Kinsley, Time

WEeding Winner 8

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“The View from the Continent,” by Peter Wehner, Commentary Magazine’s “Contentions” blog

Reasons for Winning:

A:

“[I]t’s also worth putting on the other side of the moral ledger the fact that we liberated more than 50 million people from two of the most odious and repressive regimes in modern history.” -Peter Wehner

B:

“That is especially true now that we have the right strategy in place, that we’re seeing progress on almost every front, and that we have a decent shot at a decent outcome in Iraq. The situation is still hugely challenging and success, if we achieve it, will be long in coming.” -Peter Wehner

Comments:

In A: Mr. Wehner may be speaking in the first-person plural of himself insofar as he was a member of the Bush administration. However, the post does not attempt to clarify whether Mr. Wehner means the rest of the “we” to include only the Bush administration, or the American citizenry as a whole.

I would argue that — given this ambiguity and the cultural context in which Mr. Wehner is writing — the “we” in “we liberated 50 million people” is meant to include all Americans, and is therefore a WEed. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

Most Americans have liberated no one. If liberation has occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was the soldiers on the ground who brought it.

Since most of us Americans are not soldiers, the article’s use of the first-person plural to honor us for something we did not do is a WEed.

In B: Both the first and last instances of “we” are WEeds. Neither you, nor I, nor Mr. Wehner have a “strategy in place” with regard to Iraq. We are living our lives here (going to work, hanging out with friends, reading blogs), not living, working, or fighting in Iraq.

And the “success” of which the article speaks, if it is achieved, will not have been achieved by you, me, or Mr. Wehner. It will have been achieved by the people living, working, or fighting in Iraq.

Therefore, describing such an achievement as something “we” might produce is WEedy.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

3/4 = 0.75

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 9

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“Interview with Senator Barack Obama,” answers by Barack Obama, CNN’s The Situation Room

Reasons for Winning:

A:

“If I had my way, we would not have gone into Iraq in the first place.” -Barack Obama

B:

“And I think the American people are smart enough to understand that a phased withdrawal, where we’re as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, that puts pressure on the Iraqis to stand up and take seriously their obligations to arrive at a political accommodation at the same time as we are doubling down on diplomacy in the surrounding region, . . . then we are also investing in humanitarian aid for the people who have been displaced in Iraq, that that’s not surrendering.” -Barack Obama

C:

“That’s a sensible policy that will allow us then to deal with our biggest strategic problem, which is al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan reconstituting themselves. And that’s something that we have been distracted from and something that I intend to focus on when I’m president of the United States.” -Barack Obama

D:

“I think the way we have run this war in Iraq has lessened our ability to move our allies. It has led us to ignore the critical needs for us to focus on a sound energy policy in this country. It has left us unable to lead on critical global issues like global warming. And it has led us to neglect what ultimately is the most important thing to keeping America safe, and that is having an economy that is the envy of the world and that gives us the resources and the power to project ourselves around the world.” -Barack Obama

Comments:

With regard to A: The “go[ing] into Iraq” of which Obama speaks was done by troops. Obama is not in the armed forces. He may have visited Iraq after the initial invasion; but he no doubt did so on purpose. Surely he wouldn’t have gone against his own wishes by going into Iraq.

In short, Obama is speaking in the first person about things he himself has not done. Thus the “we” in A is a WEed. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

With regard to B: “[T]he American people” are not in Iraq. They did not “[get] in” “carelessly,” nor will they be “getting out” “careful[ly].” Some people who are American are in Iraq, but not the American people.

More importantly, Barack Obama himself did not get carelessly into Iraq. He was against the invasion. And yet Obama speaks in the first person of both invading and leaving Iraq. This is a WEed.

With regard to C: If Obama is so concerned about the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, can we really take him seriously when he speaks in the first person of “be[ing] distracted from” that situation?

With regard to D: Even though he has not been “run[ning] this war,” Obama speaks in the first person of doing so. No American but Bush and his generals can claim to have been running the war.

Then, after taking credit for running the war poorly, he claims to have “ignore[d]” and “neglect[ed]” other things which he claims to think are very important. Can we actually believe he has been ignoring and neglecting these things?

Once again, he speaks in the first person of things he has not done. These are WEeds.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

6/38 = 0.15789

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 10

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“Rethinking the Iraq Critics,” by Michael Barone, U.S. News and World Report

Reasons for Winning:

A:

“Feith identifies as our central mistake the decision not to create an Iraqi Interim Authority to take over some sovereign functions soon after the overthrow of Saddam.” -Michael Barone

B:

“There’s still much to be learned about our decisions, good and bad, in Iraq.” -Michael Barone

Comments:

Barone writes of “our central mistake” and “our decisions, good and bad, in Iraq.” And yet I can find no evidence that he has made any mistakes or decisions in Iraq. As best I can tell, he is simply a journalist and commentator.

One thing that is particularly ironic about the WEedy sentences above, is that the article includes other sentences like,

“As head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer took the State-CIA view and, without much supervision from Washington, decided that the U.S. occupation would continue for as long as two years” (regarding “our central mistake”), and

“Feith admits he made mistakes and misjudgments,”

in which it is clear whose decisions were good and whose mistaken.

And yet Barone — writing in the first person, elsewhere in the same article — speaks as if the very decisions he has attributed to Bremer, Bush, Feith, et al., are his own. Thus the instances of the first-person plural in A and B are WEeds. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

2/6 = 0.333…

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 11

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“We’re (Still) No. 1,” by the Editors, Investors Business Daily

Reasons for Winning:

A:

“We defeated Nazism, fascism and communism.” -IBD Editors

B:

“If an Indian billionaire is now richer than Donald Trump, so what? We made it possible.” -IBD Editors

C:

“This is not to say America doesn’t have its problems. We were once limited by only our dreams. Now we are limited by politicians who can’t see beyond the next election.” -IBD Editors

D:

“We import oil from terrorist supporters while leaving ours in the ground. China is building nuclear and coal plants. Why aren’t we?” -IBD Editors

E:

“The Soviets were going to bury us, remember? We buried them.” -IBD Editors

Comments:

With regard to A: One wants to ask the IBD editors how they had time to do all of this while getting their degrees, making a name for themselves in the business world, working for IBD, etc. Evidently they have WWII veterans among them. An impressive team!

With regard to B: I assume the Indian billionaire in question has written to thank the IBD editors personally.

With regard to C: Evidently a lot has changed in American governance over the lifetimes of the current IBD editors. A shift from total freedom to complete tyranny?

With regard to D: Sounds like the IBD editors need to be making better life choices. Maybe they would have time to build more nuclear and coal plants if they weren’t spending so much time editing IBD.

With regard to E: And here I thought it was the Beatles, or Pope John Paul II, or Dallas, or Reagan, who had “buried” the Soviets. Evidently it was the IBD editors.

In short, it is clear that each of the above uses of the first-person plural by the IBD editors is a WEed. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

7/12 = 0.58333…

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 12

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“Getting Away With Torture,” by Dahlia Lithwick, Newsweek

Reasons for Winning:

A:

“Our ‘terror trials’ aren’t working.” -Dahlia Lithwick

B:

“And even if we do convict this handful of terrorists at Guantánamo, there still remain almost 300 detainees at the base, held there for years without charges.” -Dahlia Lithwick

Comments:

First, Ms. Lithwick is a Canadian.

Second, Ms. Lithwick is not involved in the prosecution of anyone in Guantánamo.

And yet Ms. Lithwick writes in the first person about actions which are being engaged in by American prosecutors.

The “our” and the “we” above are WEeds. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

2/1 = 2

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 13

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“Should You Pay $6 Per Gallon?,” by Keith Naughton, Newsweek

Reasons for Winning:

A:

“The fact is, as much as we gripe about gas prices, we’re pumping just as much of the precious liquid into our tanks as ever.” -Keith Naughton

B:

“What’s driving this demand? Our lust for large cars and long trips.” -Keith Naughton

C:

“And as we have migrated ever deeper into the exurbs, the average miles driven per household has jumped 42 percent, from 19,000 miles in 1980 to 27,000 miles last year, according to federal statistics.” -Keith Naughton

D:

“But we’re not dramatically downsizing our rides the way our parents did after the oil embargos of the 1970s.” -Keith Naughton

E:

“But we’re not making that kind of transportation sacrifice today, even though we’ve blown past the inflation-adjusted record gas price of $3.40 a gallon set back in 1981.” -Keith Naughton

F:

“Back in 1980 gas and oil expenditures accounted for 5 percent of our personal income.” -Keith Naughton

G:

“Now, though, we’re used to riding high in a comfortable, commodious cabin and don’t want to turn back.” -Keith Naughton

H:

“But it might not take pricey technologies or outlandish gas prices to change our guzzling ways.” -Keith Naughton

Comments:

With regard to A: One wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “You do? You ‘gripe about gas prices’? You’re ‘pumping just as much of the precious liquid into [y]our tanks as ever’?” Because if not, he should not speak in the first person about doing so.

One also wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “And I’m doing the same?” Because if not, he cannot speak for me through pluralizing his first-person speech.

With regard to B: I know plenty of people who have no “lust for large cars and long trips.” In fact, given the critical tone of the article, I doubt that Mr. Naughton lusts for either. And yet Mr. Naughton writes as if he speaks for himself, and all the rest of us.

With regard to C: One wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “You have? You’ve ‘imigrated ever deeper into the exurbs’? Why are you doing this?” One also wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “And I have as well? How do you know?” Once again, Mr. Naughton’s article misuses the first-person plural.

With regard to D: One wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “You aren’t? Why aren’t you following your parents’ example?”

One also wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “I’m not? How do you know the relative size of the cars I’ve driven? And you know this for every other American too? There isn’t a single American out there who has followed their parents’ example?”

Yet another WEed. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

With regard to E: One wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “Why aren’t you ‘making that kind of transportation sacrifice’, and how do you know I’m not?” WEeds, WEeds, WEeds.

With regard to F: I had no income back in 1980. (I wasn’t even born for most of it.) Neither did 99% of my students (who weren’t born until well into the ’80’s). And yet you speak for us as if we had incomes and spent a percentage of them on gas and oil.

Furthermore, it’s difficult to believe that Mr. Naughton himself spent exactly “5 percent of [his] personal income” as a sophmore/junior at Central Michigan U. And yet he writes in the first person of doing so.

With regard to G: One wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “Why are you still writing as if you speak for everyone? Some of us have never had enough money to get ‘used to riding high in a comfortable, commodious cabin’. Many of us don’t even own cars at all.”

And with regard to H: Is it really believable that Mr. Naughton believes his “ways” to be “guzzling”? If he does, why hasn’t he changed them? And if he has, why isn’t he brave enough to say “your” rather than “our”?

From all of this, it is evident that the article is filled with WEeds, and thus deserves a WEedy.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

8/16 = 0.5

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 14

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“Genetic Discrimination: Unfair or Natural?,” by Michael Kinsley, Time

Reasons for Winning:

A:

“Of course, we outlaw a lot of behavior that would be rational if it weren’t against the law.” -Michael Kinsley

B:

“Nevertheless, the near total and uncontroversial agreement among Americans that genetic discrimination is wrong says something important about us: we may be a bit confused about all this, but we are a lot more radical about equality than we think.” -Michael Kinsley

Comments:

Regarding A: As far as I can tell, Mr. Kinsley has never served in a legislature. And yet he writes in the first person of “outlaw[ing] a lot of behavior . . . .”

Regarding B: Evidently Mr. Kinsley doesn’t trust himself very much. He thinks he’s more radical than he thinks. Which means he thinks he’s wrong about himself.

Which means he doesn’t think what he thinks.

What?

WEeds, that’s what. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

2/7 = 0.285714

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

Call for Nominations

Have you encountered any texts online (posts, articles, comments, speeches, websites, etc.) which need WEeding? I welcome nominations for future WEeding Awards, so keep your eye out while you’re surfing! Just use the Contact page, and send me the URL.

Thanks!

[<<Volume 2 | About | Winners | Records | FAQ | Volume 4>>]

Tags: Barack Obama, CNN, Commentary Magazine, Contentions, Dahlia Lithwick, Investors Business Daily, Keith Naughton, Michael Barone, Michael Kinsley, Newsweek, Peter Wehner, The Situation Room, Time, U.S. News and World Report